The contested nature of heritage in Grade 10 South African History textbooks: a case study

 

 

Nkwenti Fru; Johan Wassermann; Marshall Maposa

University of Kwa-Zulu Natal fru@ukzn.ac.za, wassermannj@ukzn.ac.za & maposam2@ukzn.ac.za

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Using the interpretivist paradigm and approached from a qualitative perspective, this case study produced data on three purposively selected contemporary South African history textbooks with regards to their representation ofheritage. Lexicalisation, a form of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), was used as method to analyse the pre-generated data from the selected textbooks. In this Fairclough's (2003) three dimensions of describing, interpreting, and explaining the text was followed. The study adopted a holistic approach to heritage as a conceptual framework whilst following social constructionism as the lens through which heritage was explored in the selected textbooks. The findings from this study concluded that although educational policy in the form of the National Curriculum Statement - NCS-History clearly stipulates the expectations to be achieved from the teaching and learning ofheritage at Grade 10 level, there are inconsistencies and contradictions at the level of implementation of the heritage outcome in the history textbooks. Key among the findings are the absence of representation of natural heritage, lack of clear conceptualisation of heritage, many diverse pedagogic approaches towards heritage depiction, a gender and race representation of heritage that suggests an inclination towards patriarchy and a desire to retain apartheid and colonial dogma respectively, and finally a confirmation of the tension in the heritage/history relationship.

Keywords: Heritage; History; Textbooks; Lexicalisation; CDA.

---

 

 

Introduction and Background

There have been significant developments in education in South Africa since the demise of apartheid in 1994. The ultimate goal of these changes has been to redress the injustices of the apartheid curriculum. Msila (2007) submits that education is not a neutral act; it is always political. Education in the apartheid era was used as a weapon to divide society as it constructed different identities amongst learners. This is evidenced in the statement made by Dr H.F. Verwoerd, the then Minister of Native Affairs in 1955, "when I have control over native education, I will reform it so that natives will be taught from childhood that equality with Europeans is not for them" (Christie, 1985, p. 12. Cited in Naiker, 1998, p. 9).

The national policy on South African living heritage (2009) of the Department of Arts and Culture explains this situation further by revealing that the history of apartheid ensured that heritage aspects such as the practice and promotion of languages, the performing arts, rituals, social practices and indigenous knowledge of various social groups were not balanced and were strongly and systematically discouraged. Summarily, it is evident that the apartheid authorities ensured that the heritage of the people of colour in South Africa was never appreciated or promoted. An example of this was the false impression that was created that traditional dress code and traditional dances of certain groups were backward and clashed with colonial adopted practices such as Christianity (Department of Arts and Culture, 2009).

With the end of apartheid, heritage was included as one of the outcomes of the NCS-History. The NCS-History stated that in addition to enquiry skills, historical conceptual understanding and knowledge construction and communication, learners of history were to be introduced to issues and debates around heritage and public representations, and they were expected to work progressively towards engaging with them (Department of Education, 2003). The implication here is that learners were expected to engage with different customs, cultures, traditions and in other words, different heritages. It should be noted that the NCS was replaced in 2011 with the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) as part of the process of curriculum transformation in South Africa. The new CAPS-History for Grade 10 document deals with heritage by explicitly inviting learners to engage with what constitutes heritage as well as to investigate this in a research project. Notwithstanding, the scope of this article was limited to the NCS and selected Grade 10 history textbooks.

Furthermore, in the context of this article it is necessary to understand that the curriculum is articulated by means of textbooks. As the most commonly used teaching resource and the vehicle through which the curriculum is made public, the history textbook has the potential to play a significant part in the implementation of heritage education. History textbooks and textbooks in general have been widely acknowledged as very important instructional materials to support teachers, lecturers, pupils and students in following a curriculum (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Lin et al., 2009; Johannesson, 2002; Romanowski, 1996; Schoeman, 2009; Sewall, 2004; and Wakefield, 2006). However, in spite of this vital pedagogic role, some scholars have questioned their neutrality. In light of this, Apple and Christian-Smith (1991, p. 3) argued that "...texts are not simply delivery systems of facts. They are at once the result of political, economic and cultural activities, battles and compromised. They are conceived, designed and authored by people with real interest. They are published within the political and economic constraints of markets, resources and power". Therefore history textbooks by their nature tend to "control knowledge as well as transmit it, and reinforce selective cultural values in learners (Engelbrecht, 2006, p. 1). The implication of this nature of history textbooks in terms of this study is that the textbooks are not neutral even in the way they represent heritage as an outcome of the curriculum.

It is necessary to note that the presence of heritage in the curriculum and the textbooks has not eliminated some of the controversies and the contestations surrounding heritage. The reality on the ground is not always congruent with the lofty aims of the constitution and the aspirations of the post-1994 South African government. A major concern here is about shared heritage, if indeed this notion exists. Recently the South African national and some local government structures have embarked on a project to change place names and street names. Though this can be understood in the context of reconstruction of a post-conflict society, such actions, however, provoke questions such as: whose heritage is being promoted? Is national heritage actually the heritage of the nation or its inhabitants? It equally increases the debate on the place of history as well as the heritage/history dichotomy. What should be retained and preserved? What should be discarded and why? On the one hand there is the will to acknowledge the past and create inclusiveness in society as proclaimed in the constitution and the curriculum, but on the other hand there is the difficulty of its practicability.

 

Towards a conceptual framework of Heritage

Many scholars have indicated that heritage as a concept is a malleable one. It is largely ambiguous, very difficult and debatable, and full of paradoxes (Copeland, 2004; Edson, 2004; Kros, 2003; Marschall, 2010; Morrow, 2002; van Wijk, no date & Vecco, 2010). It is therefore evident that heritage as a concept has numerous meanings based on context, time and ideology. Whilst some of the scholars mentioned above place more emphasis on tangible objects such as monuments to comprise heritage, others are of the firm view that heritage surpasses the tangible and includes aspects that are intangible. These two opinions largely characterise discussions on the meaning of heritage and have rendered it difficult to establish a dichotomy for heritage.

From a simple understanding, the word tangible would mean, items that can be seen, touched and/or felt physically while intangible would refer to the opposite of the above. In relation to heritage, this knowledge seems to have an influence in the general understanding of the tangible and the intangible nature of it. Tangible heritage would be heritage resources that can be experienced, seen, touched, and walked around and through (Adler et al., 1987). Examples of such resources include historic architecture, artefacts in museums, monuments, buildings, graves, landscapes, remains of dwellings and military sites including memorials and battle fields that form part of the history of a given community.

Articles one and two of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO, 1972) identify two categories of tangible heritages, cultural and natural tangible heritage. In the first part, it considers cultural tangible heritage to be monuments, groups of buildings and sites and work of people or the combined works of nature and people that are of outstanding value whether from the point of view of history, art or science, or from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or even anthropological view point. The second part of the convention considers natural tangible heritage in three dimensions, namely: as natural features consisting of physical and biological formations; as geological and physiological formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants, and finally as precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding value from the point of view of science conservation and natural beauty. The connotation therefore is that tangible heritage could either appear in natural or cultural form. Copeland (2004) however, cautions that in whichever form it appears, it must be able to stimulate the imagination for it to be considered as heritage. It is also possible that some properties might satisfy more than one of these definitions. For example, a property can be both a monument and a group of buildings.

Regarding intangible heritage, a succinct meaning is provided by Deacon, Dondolo, Mrubata, and Prosalindis (2004). Their view is that intangible heritage consists of oral traditions, memories, languages, performing arts or rituals, knowledge systems and values and know-how that a family or community wish to safeguard and pass on to future generations. This involves the way of life of a people and is usually embedded in their customs, traditions and cultural practices. In other terms, it "refers to aesthetic, spiritual, symbolic or other social values that ordinary people associate with an object or a site" (Marschall, 2010, p. 35). Intangible heritage is also known as living heritage and can appear in cultural form (Bredekamp, 2004; Department of Arts and Culture, 2009). As with tangible heritage, some intangible heritage resources also have cultural properties which are sometimes called intangible cultural heritage such as songs.

One common aspect among researchers is the idea that all these different forms of heritage do not stand independent of each other (Bredekamp, 2004; Edson, 2004; Jones, 2009; Marschall, 2010; Munjeri, 2004). They are so interconnected to the extent that a study on one will require a systematic understanding of the other and vice versa. Whether tangible or intangible; natural, cultural or living; movable or immovable, it is evident that they all complement each other. Therefore a full understanding of heritage can only be achieved through a study of the multiple reciprocal relationships between the tangible and the intangible elements.

It is this inter-relationship that is termed IN-Tangible heritage in this article. This means that intangible can be part of the tangible with the former defining the latter. In the tangible is the intangible and the reverse might also be true. An example of this scenario is of distinctive cultural landscapes that have spiritual significance (Bredekamp, 2004). The landscape in this example is an IN-Tangible resource because it contains elements of both the tangible and the intangible through the physical landscape and its underlying spiritual significance.

In Image 1 above, A represents aspects of heritage that are tangible while B stands for the intangible heritage. C represents the relationship between A and B which is the IN-Tangible in this framework. The link attaching the three components symbolises their inter-connected relationship as explained earlier. These three aspects together portray a holistic understanding of heritage.

 

 

This understanding of heritage is therefore a holistic one and embraces both the tangible and the intangible components of heritage. It is this approach that will serve as the conceptual framework for this study. Contrary to a reductionist approach, the holistic perspective is more inclusive (Perez et al, 2010). In addition to accommodating tangible and intangible components of heritage in cultural and/or natural forms, holistic heritage also acknowledges heritage at personal, family, community, state and world levels. The table below is a representation of the holistic manifestation of heritage as identified by Perez et al (2010):

 

 

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative design. Gonzales et al., cited in Cohen et al (2011) submit that this form of research is concerned with an in-depth, intricate and detailed understanding of phenomenon, attitudes, intentions and behaviours. By implication, a qualitative study should produce findings that are not reached by means of quantification. The qualitative study is approached from the interpretive paradigm. Blanche and Kelly (2002, p. 123) submit that "interpretivist research methods try to describe and interpret people's feelings and experiences in human terms rather than through quantification and measurements".

The link between the qualitative research design and the interpretive paradigm is highlighted by Stevens et al (1993) who suggests that research carried out in the interpretive paradigm is called qualitative research. The focus of this article is to gain an understanding of the nature of heritage representation in selected Grade 10 South African history textbooks. This merges with the interpretive paradigm, especially considering Henning's view that the core of the interpretive paradigm is not about the search for broadly applicable laws and rules, but rather it seeks to produce descriptive analysis that emphasises deep, interpretive understanding of social phenomena (Henning, 2004). As a result, this study will produce rich descriptions of the characteristics, processes, transactions and contexts that constitute the nature of heritage in the selected history textbooks as the phenomena being studied.

The sample choice adopted for this article is non-random sampling. Christensen (2011) explains that the aim of non-random sampling is to study phenomena and interpret results in their specific context. Therefore the primary concern of a researcher using this sampling method is not to generalise research outcomes to the entire population but to provide detailed descriptions and analysis within the confines of the selected units of analysis - in this study the selected Grade 10 history textbooks. Explained differently, the focus of this study is to generate rich qualitative data as oppose to achieving statistical accuracy or representativeness of data to an entire population.

The specific genre of non-random sampling employed in this article was the purposive sampling method. This kind of sampling is a feature of qualitative research in which "researchers purposely choose subjects who, in their opinion, are relevant to the project" (Sarantakos, 2005, p. 164). In light of the above, the sample choice in this article were handpicked based on their possession of the phenomenon being sought - heritage. Furthermore, an implication of the study being qualitative is that the sample size is irrelevant since the interest is in attaining in-depth understanding. The Table below is a representation of this sample.

 

 

The methodology employed to analyse the data from the textbooks was the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The overarching theme derived from the literature reviewed on CDA is the idea that it is concerned with the analysis of how language and discourse is used to achieve social goals and also the part the use of language plays in social maintenance and change. The broad and complex nature of discourse itself, and CDA in particular, also reflects that there are many methods involved in using it for analysis. With this in mind, the choices made for analysis in this study are borrowed from both Fairclough's idea of the structure of the text and Halliday's notion of the grammatical aspects of the text otherwise known as interactional analysis, which deals with the linguistic features of the text (Meyer, 2001). These two aspects that are illustrated in Image 2 below constituted the method used to analyse the data for this study.

 

 

In his analytical framework for CDA, Fairclough proposes three dimensions of analysing texts that include description (text analysis), interpretation (processing analysis), and explanation (social analysis) (Fairclough, 1989, 1992, 1995, cited in Locke, 2004, p. 42 and Rogers et al., 2005, p. 371). As Image 2 indicates, the first goal therefore is to deal with the internal mechanisms of the text and the focus is on aspects of text analysis that include grammar and vocabulary, as influenced by Halliday.

In the second level of analysis which is interpretation, the goal is to interpret the data captured and described in the previous section. This is done in relation to the conceptual framework in such a way that the indicators in the framework, serves as signifiers in the analytical instrument. Aspects of lexicalisation are then checked against the indicators in the conceptual framework. Table 3 below is an example of the instrument recruited for analysis at step two.

 

 

Finally, the last step of analysis is the level of explanation known as social analysis. At this stage, data obtained from the description and interpretation of the textbooks are compared and contrasted with the purpose of establishing the trends and patterns of heritage representation as obtained in the three textbooks across the publications. This stage particularly exposed how heritage is conceptualised and portrayed in the history textbooks - which is the research question underpinning this study.

Moreover, the methods considered for analysis in this study also included an examination of issues of gender, race, and geography within the selected textbooks as part of CDA. This was inspired by van Dijk (2001) who suggested that CDA is mainly interested in the role of discourse in the abuse and reproduction of power and hence particularly interested in the detailed study of the interface between the structures of discourse and the structures of society. Therefore the analysis progressed systematically from description to interpretation and then to explanation of the data.

 

Analysis and Findings

In search of history, Grade 10, Learner's book (Bottaro et al., 2005)

In its conceptualisation of heritage, this textbook ignores natural heritage as a form of heritage. This is evident in the absence of lexicons relating to this indicator of heritage. Emphasis is therefore on cultural heritage, with symbolic-identity heritage being the main form of cultural heritage represented in the conceptualisation. The other indicators of scientific-technological and ethnological heritage are also absent. The implication, therefore, in this textbook, is that heritage is a cultural concept of a mainly symbolic-identity nature. This trend is also replicated in the two case studies of heritage in the book with lexicons of symbolic-identity nature prioritised over other indicators. However, with the case study on 'Great Zimbabwe', mention is made of natural heritage resources namely 'the Limpopo and Zambezi rivers'. Yet the context in which natural heritage is used in the text does not seem to promote this form of heritage but rather it is used within the framework of symbolism and identity as it only serves to locate the habitat of the Shona people who are seen as "descendants of the people of builders of Great Zimbabwe" (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 220).

The analysis of the above indicators also revealed the nature of representation of other discourses relevant to post-conflict societies such as gender, race, and geography. Although in some of these instances, some discrepancy in the nature of these representations was noted, this could also be seen within the context of a historiographical turn in post-conflict South Africa with attempts to make heritage and history more inclusive as required by the constitution and sanctioned by the NCS-History. Therefore to a large extent, the representation shows an attempt to portray shared, inclusive and international heritage from the perspective of the indicators noted above.

Furthermore, the textbook's view of heritage also concurs with the conceptual framework on heritage as being tangible, intangible or IN-Tangible. Even though the findings show more affinity towards intangible heritage, some aspects of tangible heritage are also mentioned. However, evidence from the textbook suggests that heritage cannot be purely tangible - it can only be intangible or IN-Tangible. This claim is made based on the lexical examples used in the conceptualisation and the two case studies. For example, monuments and historic buildings are tangible but they are only heritage icons because of what they represent, which is intangible - meaning they are both tangible and intangible.

Attempts to present heritage as a shared and inclusive practice is also truly illustrated by pronoun choices. At the level of conceptualisation, the text makes use of personal pronouns as the first person plural form such as "we", "our" and "us" to refer to heritage.

Therefore by means of CDA, the analysis of this textbook revealed that it views heritage as a cultural concept of mainly symbolic-identity nature. Through the choice of pronouns used the book attempts to portray a shared and inclusive heritage in terms of geography, gender and race. However lexicons such as 'their heritage' are also used to imply that not all heritages can be shared, and this confirms the complex nature of the heritage concept itself.

Shuters history, Grade 10, Learner's book (Dlamini et al., 2005)

The first realisation was that this textbook has no clear narration or discourse that runs through the heritage chapter - chapter 8 (pp. 222-240). It is published in the form of visuals (pictures), sources, with assessment activities to support and enhance meaning in the textual content. This style has an implication in the way the book presents heritage because in this sense, heritage is seen as a highly contested and sometimes controversial concept whose presentation must be backed by relevant sources and evidence - therefore the choice of this book to provide as many sources to support its use of lexicons in portraying heritage.

Moreover, findings from this book on the concept ofheritage show a limitation of heritage representation to South Africa and the southern African region. International heritage in this book therefore manifests in the representation of geographical spaces of these regions only. This dimension of heritage is also supported by the choice of pronouns used in the text, such as 'we' and 'our'. The choice of the first person plural pronouns also indicates collective, shared and inclusive heritage, in the South African and southern African region, but also that heritage is an inclusive and shared concept that could and should be understood beyond individual perspectives or national frontiers.

But this inclusive and shared form of heritage is unfortunately weakened by the fact that there is evidence of unequal representation of lexical indicators of heritage linked to issues of gender and race. For example, in most instances throughout the book, with the exception of Saartjie Baartman, women are only implicitly expressed while masculinity is overtly used in more than one occasion to illustrate examples of heritage icons. Regarding racial bias, a case in point is the South African context where the choice of examples selected is not fully representative of the South African diverse ethno-racial landscape. Generally, there is an emphasis on southern African heritage with examples of the Khoisan represented by Baartman, El Negro and rock art, advanced to illustrate this (p. 318). It is also portrayed in the example of Great Zimbabwe and Mapungubwe.

Apropos of the heritage conceptual indicators, the conceptualisation and the case study analysis of this book show evidence of a lack of representation of lexicons of the natural heritage category, resulting in a focus on cultural heritage. In this regard the different indicators of cultural heritage are applied in different proportions and subsequently, symbolic-identity heritage as a category of cultural heritage is promoted at the expense of other indicators of the same category such as ethnological heritage and scientific-technological heritage, which are used sparingly.

Furthermore, the textbook's representation of heritage also concurs with the conceptual framework on heritage as being tangible, intangible or INTangible. Even though the findings show more affinity towards intangible heritage, some aspects of tangible heritage are also mentioned. However, evidence from the textbook suggests that heritage cannot be purely tangible - it can only be intangible or IN-Tangible. This claim is made based on the choice of lexicons used as examples in both the conceptualisation and the case studies of heritage in the text. For example, monuments and historic buildings are tangible but they are only heritage icons because of what they represent, which is intangible - meaning they are both tangible and intangible(IN-Tangible).

Making history, Grade 10, Learners' book (Dugmore et al., 2005)

There is no distinct conceptualisation of heritage in this textbook - rather the meaning of heritage is deduced from the nature of heritage representation in the case studies. The three case studies have as themes: the celebration of public holidays; the celebration of the heritage icons of Great Zimbabwe (p. 239) and the Bastille (239-240); and finally issues around humans on display. Therefore the first impression is that these three case studies are priority heritage aspects considered by the producers of this book. However, a detailed understanding of heritage was only possible through a CDA analysis of the textual content of these different topics.

Through this analysis, it was realised that there is major emphasis on symbolic-identity heritage as opposed to the other benchmarks of heritage that are either scantily or not represented at all. Even when they feature in the data, the context of their use suggests that they are only mentioned to support the representation of symbolic-identity heritage. Generally, the three case studies present heritage differently. The examples used to present the heritage of public holidays suggest an emphasis on the heritage of whites. This is evident in the choice of Columbus Day, Van Riebeeck Day and Day of Reconciliation, which all have strong white racial connotations, as well as the lexical choices used in the text to illustrate these days, namely the activities of white personalities such as Cecil Rhodes, Andries Pretorius, and P.W. Botha. However, there is role reversal in the case of humans on display whereby whites are seen as perpetrators of cruelty on black people who are simply portrayed as helpless victims without agency.

Moreover, from a gender perspective, except with the solitary case of Saartjie Baartman, there is a strong masculine presence in the heritage portrayed by this textbook. All the major characters exemplified are males. They are portrayed as founders of nations, as kings, presidents, successful warriors and heroes. In contrast, the only time a woman is used as a major character is when she is humiliated through public displays and in museum exhibitions. Such a skewed representation of women is incompatible with present day norms and values of gender equality.

There is an attempt to portray and support heritage as an international concept that incises nations and continents. The choice of examples and the case studies themselves illustrate this. Columbus Day is an American holiday; Van Riebeeck Day and Day of Reconciliation are South African. Zimbabwe is depicted through the heritage of the Ancient Kingdom of Great Zimbabwe whilst the Bastille represents France. El Negro represents the heritage of Botswana and together with Saartjie Baartman they represent the plight of the Khoisan people of southern Africa in particular but of Africans in general. Therefore the thesis of this textbook is that heritage is inclusive in terms of geography. It is so intricately intertwined and complex that one group's or country's heritage cannot be understood and/or appreciated without comparison with the heritage of the other.

Summarily therefore, the textbook fails to conceptualise heritage but through the case studies it is possible to deduce its view on and understanding of the concept. The focus is on heritage as public holidays; as icons (Great Zimbabwe and Bastille); and as humans on display (Saartjie Baartman and El Negro). Applying the benchmark for analysis, symbolic-identity heritage is prioritised while other benchmarks are either scantily applied or used out of context. Even though emphasis is occasionally on African heritage and the Khoisan in particular, sub texts speak greatly of white heritage.

 

Explanation of Heritage as portrayed in the three History Textbooks

Initially, the style of the textbooks is such that heritage is depicted as conceptualisation and as case studies. This is however true only of Bottaro et al. (2005) and Dlamini et al. (2005). In Dugmore et al (2005), the understanding of heritage is implicit in the case studies. However, this style of presentation is an indication that heritage is not only about the personal, that is 'my heritage', it is also about the heritage of other people, other places and other things. Therefore, the heritage espoused in these textbooks is not only about the heritage of the Grade 10 learner's as consumers of these books, but it also alludes to the heritage of the world.

The different views adopted in the textbooks with regards to foregrounding the conceptualisation of heritage are elaborated on below. Bottaro et al (2005) makes a worthy attempt to clarify its understanding of the meaning of heritage as well as define its delimitations prior to engaging in the case studies. The idea of a clear conceptualisation is also foregrounded by the producers of (Dlamini et al, 2005). However, the effort in the textbook is meagre and the bulk of the understanding is implicit in the case studies. Dugmore et al. (2005) on the other hand makes no attempt to foreground the meaning of heritage. Therefore, with the exception of Bottaro et al. (2005), the other two textbooks assume an understanding of heritage and do not provide any clear conceptualisation. This denotes heritage as a poorly reasoned body of knowledge that can be integrated into disciplines such as history or tourism. The divergent views in the textbooks on the issue of foregrounding the heritage as a concept as seen through the textbooks' application of lexicalisation are an indication of the complex nature of heritage itself.

Symbolic-identity heritage is the heritage benchmark that is predominant in all three textbooks. This category of heritage is portrayed through the choice of lexicon used to refer to 'important' individuals of the past, events and places of the past that have contributed to the development of a particular heritage and the identity of a people. Other forms of cultural and natural heritage are sparingly represented or completely absent in these textbooks. For instance, Dugmore et al (2005) uses examples of lexicons related to natural heritage in its case studies. These are: Table Mountain and Ncome River; Zimbabwe plateau, grazing land, arable land, and timber resources; Tsholofelo Park and Orange and Vaal Rivers. Apart from a suggestion on Limpopo and Zambezi Rivers, Bottaro et al. (2005) and Dlamini et al. (2005) are silent on the representation of natural heritage. However, the contextual interpretation of the natural heritage lexicons as used in the instances cited above, suggests that they are meant to support an aspect of symbolic-identity heritage rather than to portray the kind of heritage element in them thereby confirming the dominance of symbolic-identity heritage representation in the textbooks.

All three books depict aspects of heritage from an ethnological perspective. Whilst this is not evident in the conceptualisation of Bottaro et al. (2005) the two case studies portray lexicons of ethnological heritage. This is also true of Dlamini et al. (2005) that elaborate in the case studies the ethnological routes of the Zulu people, the Bushmen, and the Khoisan. Whilst in Dugmore et al. (2005), there is also a depiction of ethnological heritage in the case studies. Case study 2 depicts the Shona and Ndebele ethnic groups while case study three discusses the Tswana, Batlhaping, and Bechuana ethnic communities as heritage icons.

The least represented indicator is the scientific-technological heritage. The only book that clearly makes use of this indicator is Dugmore et al. (2005, p. 241) with its allusion to "scientific racism". Notwithstanding, it should be noted that some elements categorised under symbolic-identity heritage could as well fit into this category. The implication is therefore that the heritage benchmarks as outlined in the conceptual framework are not rigid. They can be interlinked as a result of some heritage elements having the possibility of being classified under more than one heritage category. For instance, the examples of monuments, museums, and buildings cited in all three textbooks as heritage, are understandably aspects of symbolic-identity heritage and are captured as such. However, the scientific knowledge involved in them, constitutes aspects of scientific-technological heritage. This implies a possibility for the creation of other benchmarks for analysis that will be a merger of two or more present categories. However, this option was not considered for this article and any lapses in categorisation are considered as a limitation to this study. Yet, even with the possibility of a new category, symbolic-identity heritage is still dominant. As a result, the textbooks fail to present a holistic heritage as described in the conceptual framework, in Image 1 and table 1. Therefore, according to the producers of the selected textbooks, the goal of heritage at Grade 10 level is to expose learners to a predominantly symbolic-identity heritage at the expense of other heritages, namely: scientific-technological; ethnological; and natural heritage.

In terms of the nature of heritage as being tangible, intangible or INTangible, all three textbooks portray lexicons that contain elements of all three. However, there is a realisation from the analysis that heritage cannot exist in a purely tangible form. It can only be either intangible or tangible but with intangible properties, making it IN-Tangible. This is because all tangible objects do have significances that appear in intangible form. For example, the textbooks as the objects of study in this research are tangible heritage materials that are made IN-Tangible through certain ideologies they represent. INTangible heritage representation is corroborated by the fact that symbolic-identity heritage has been identified as the dominant indicator in the three textbooks. This implies that the tangible elements of symbolic heritage are made IN-Tangible by design through the substance of their symbolism.

With regards to gender, all three textbooks show a certain bias in their representation of women. This is evident in both the numerical representation of the different genders as well as the roles given to them in the textbooks. In terms of numbers, there are far more lexicons involving male Images than women - this will not be explored since this study is not quantitative in nature but it is essential to highlight this bias through a few examples: The men are depicted as orchestrators of activities worth commemorating as public holidays such as Columbus and Van Riebeeck; they are the powerful kings such as Shaka and Dingane; they are the political Images such as George Washington, and Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson of the USA; they are also the great warriors such as Toussaint l'ouverture, Andries Pretorius and Mpande. In contrast, the only instance where a woman is represented in a significant role is mentioned in Bottaro et al. (2005, p. 225) that makes allusion to "the court of Queen Isabella" - implicating the female Isabella as a monarch. Apart from this exception, women are barely explicitly represented with the only other case being that of the humiliating experience of Saartjie Baartman in the illustration of humans on display (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 227; Dlamini et al., 2005, p. 307; Dugmore et al., 2005, p. 24l).Therefore the implication is that what is portrayed in the tangible and intangible takes on a predominantly masculine form in the text as evidenced for example by the "ghettoised" Saartjie Baartman.

Geographically, there is a desultory attempt to portray the international nature of heritage. This is nonetheless approached differently in the different textbooks. For example, in conceptualising heritage, Bottaro et al. (2005) appear to be very conscious of geographical representation, which can be seen as the idea of a common or shared heritage. This is evident in their use of the following examples that match different world geographical spaces: Taj Mahal (India); Elmina fortress (Ghana); Bastille (France); Fourth of July and Columbus day (USA); Haitian Bicentenary and Toussaint l'ouverture (Haiti);

Shaka, Voortrekker monument and the idea of a laager mentality (South Africa); Liverpool maritime museum (United Kingdom). Unfortunately, the choice of case studies in the book is not on a par with the impression created of heritage as a shared international phenomenon. The two case studies on Zimbabwean nationalism and Saartjie Baartman are geographically limited to the southern region of Africa. Therefore this book conceptualises heritage as an international phenomenon but provides case studies of heritage that are limited to southern African. Dlamini et al. (2005) on the other hand makes no contradiction in conceptualising one thing and replacing it in practice. The book is clear and consistent in its focus on the heritage of pre-colonial South Africa and by extension the sub-region of southern Africa that is manifested through the depiction of the rock art of the Khoisan, as well as the ancient civilisations of Great Zimbabwe and Mapungubwe. The focus of this book therefore is on the local heritage of southern Africa. In contrast, Dugmore et al. (2005) is more international in its representation. Though not conceptualised, the choice of lexicons linked to Columbus Day, Van Riebeeck Day, Battle of Blood River, the Bastille, Great Zimbabwe, as well as the stories of El Negro and Saartjie Baartman, are representative by implication of the heritage of the different geographical regions and people in the world. As a result it can be affirmed that the three textbooks highlight the difficulties of a shared heritage from a geography point of view - be it at international, regional, or local levels.

In addition, the race discourse was also considered for analysis. In this regard, the three books depict a paradigm shift whereby history is no longer only written by and for a particular race. The main trend in the three books is their portrayal of whites as perpetrators with power while the blacks are seen as helpless victims without agency. This is very evident in the case studies linked to humans on display. These case studies depict the 'white man' as perpetrators of the treatment of Saartjie Baartman and El Negro, who both represent the helpless condition of the black people at the time. Dugmore et al. (2005) captures this trend further through its choice of lexicons in the presentation of the activities of Christopher Columbus, Van Riebeeck as well as the Battle of Blood River. These examples show lack of autonomy and agency for black people while portraying the "white man" as having full control. Dlamini et al. (2005) presents a slightly different scenario from the one cited above. Here the focus is on the heritage of Africa as seen from the activities of pre-colonial Africa. The extensive emphasis on the art work of the Khoisan people appears to be an attempt to counteract the myth of white supremacy.

Furthermore, as a repository of heritage and culture as well as a prism through which heritage is shown, the choice of language used in the selected books was also important in understanding the nature of heritage representation. Some of the major discourses and trends in the texts were embedded in the use of language. The specific form of language here is the use of pronouns. Bottaro et al. (2005) makes use of personal pronouns in the first person plural and in different forms. For example the subject (we), the object (us), and the possessive (our) are the different forms used in the book to refer to heritage. Similar pronouns are also evident in Bottaro et al. (2005) in the conceptualisation section. The choice of these forms of pronouns reflects the publisher's desire to present in the textbook a shared and inclusive heritage. However, Bottaro et al. (2005, p. 231) makes use of "their heritage" to refer to specialised local knowledge as the heritage of tribal healers in South Africa. The insinuation is therefore that even though the textbooks' attempt to present an inclusive and shared form of heritage through the kind of language used, there is evidence that heritage cannot be inclusive at all levels. This realisation only adds to the complexity of the heritage concept.

Another perspective considered in the analysis was the views promulgated in the textbooks as well as the positions adopted on the heritage/history relationship. Consequently, all three textbooks present heritage as a recreation of the past whether in the form of people, events, objects, and places. This similarity is established in Shuters history. Grade 10. Learner's book by suggesting that "heritage, like history, also helps us understand the past" (Dlamini et al., 2005, p. 279). In Bottaro et al. (2005), the title of the heritage chapter is captured as history and heritage, to signal a relationship between the two. In spite of these similarities, the textbooks also maintain that the two are not identical. Therefore it could be affirmed that Phillips's (2006) view of heritage as a concept that fails to accept the historicity of events and denies historical time and distance is evident in the selected textbooks with regards to heritage and history. In relation to this, Dlamini et al. (2005, p. 297) submit that the purpose of the chapter on heritage was to understand how heritage "is constructed and how it is protected and conserved". A similar opinion is expressed in Bottaro et al. (2005, p. 217) where they state that "we construct our heritage out of the past in ways which make sense or are useful to us". Even though Dugmore et al. (2005) is not explicit on this discourse, the analysis of the case studies portray heritage as established in the two books cited above, in a similar trend. Therefore the selected textbooks conceptualisation and representation of heritage is on a par with history from the stance that both are concerned with issues of the past. However, the textbooks distance themselves from history at the level where they conceptualise and present heritage as a construction of the present, that refuses to accept historical time and distance.

 

Conclusion

The findings of this study have confirmed the view expressed in the literature of heritage as a highly controversial and contested phenomenon that is difficult to assign to a specific conceptualisation. This is evident in the differences with which the selected history textbooks for this study presented heritage both in terms of style and content. The implication of this inability to harmonise the textbooks' stance on heritage means that Grade 10 learners using the different textbooks are expected to adopt these different attitudes. This is amplified by the fact that textbooks and history textbooks in particular, as with heritage, are known to be used for motives other than simply pedagogical ones. Considering the post-conflict context within which the selected textbooks were created, a partnership exists between commercial publishers and government to bring about an educational product. The conclusion in this debate is that if the concept of a rainbow nation is taken to mean 'unity in diversity' then the heritage depiction in the selected textbooks shows a certain diversity but not necessarily unity. Therefore no fully-fledged all inclusive harmonious or hegemonic heritage in the context of a multi-cultural and multi-racial society was achieved by the selected textbooks.

 

References

Apple, M & Christian-Smith, L 1991. The politics of the textbook. In: M Apple & L Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics of the textbook, New York: Routledge, 1-21.         [ Links ]

Adler, E, Downing, A, Hankins, C, Hatch, K & Timken, B 1987. A heritage at risk: A report on heritage education (K12): Submitted to the national council for preservation education by the Ad Hoc committee on elementary secondary education. Burlington: University of Vermont.         [ Links ]

Blanche, MT & Kelly, K 2002. Interpretive methods. In: MT Blanche & K Durrheim (Eds.), Research methods in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press, 123-146.         [ Links ]

Bottaro, J, Visser, P & Worden, N 2005. In search of history: Grade Ten. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Bredekamp, HJ 2004. Transforming representations of intangible heritage at Iziko museums, SA. Paper presented at the ICOM General Conference, Seoul Korea.         [ Links ]

Cohen, L, Manion, L & Morrison, K 2011. Research methods in Education (Seventh ed.). New York: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Copeland, T 2004. Heritage and education: A European perspective. Paper presented at the Europa Nostra Forum, The Hague.         [ Links ]

Christensen, LB, Johnson, RB & Turner, LA 2011. Research methods, design, and analysis (Eleventh ed.). Boston: Pearson.         [ Links ]

Department of Arts and Culture 2009. National policy on South African living heritage: First Draft. Available at: http://www.dac.gov.za/policies/Draft%20National%20Policy%20on%20South%20African%20Living%20Heritage%20_ICH_.pdf. Accessed on 28 November 2010.         [ Links ]

Department of Education 2003. National curriculum statement Grade 10-12 (General). History. Available at: http//:education.pwv.gov.za. Accessed on 10 January 2011.         [ Links ]

Dlamini, N, Haw, S, Macallister, P, Middlebrook, T, Nkosi, N, Rogers, A, et al. 2005. Shuters history: Grade Ten. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter Publishers.         [ Links ]

Dugmore, C, Lekgoathi, P, Pape, J, Weldon, G, & Dyke, PV 2005. Making history: Grade Ten. Sandton: Heinemann Publishers.         [ Links ]

Edson, G 2004. Heritage: Pride or passion, product or service? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(4):333-348.         [ Links ]

Engelbrecht, A 2006. Textbooks in South Africa from apartheid to post apartheid: Ideological change revealed by racial stereotyping. Available at: www.web.worldbank.org. Accessed on 16 November 2010.         [ Links ]

Fairclough, N 2003. Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Henning, E 2004. Finding your way in qualitative research (1^st ed.). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.         [ Links ]

Johannesson, B 2002. The writing of history textbooks in South Africa. Internationale Schulbuchforschung, 24(1):89-95.         [ Links ]

Jones, S 2009. Experiencing authenticity at heritage sites: Some implications for heritage management and conservation. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 11(2):133-147.         [ Links ]

Kros, C 2003. Heritage versus history: The end of the noble tradition? Historia, 48(1):326-336.         [ Links ]

Lin, L, Zhao, Y, Ogawa, M, Hoge, J & Kim, BK 2009. Whose history? An analysis of the Korean war in history textbooks from the United States, South Korea, Japan and China. Social Studies, 100(5):222-232.         [ Links ]

Locke, T 2004. Critical discourse analysis. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.         [ Links ]

Marschall, S 2010. Landscape of memory: Commemorative monuments, memorials and public statuary in post-apartheid South Africa, 15. Leiden: Brill.         [ Links ]

Meyer, M 2001. Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches of CDA. In: R Wodak & M Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: SAGE Publications, 14-31.         [ Links ]

Morrow, S 2002. Heritage and historically black universities (HBUs): The view from Fort Hare. Historia, 47(2):446-456.         [ Links ]

Msila, V 2007. From apartheid education to the Revised National Curriculum Statement: Pedagogy for identity formation and nation building in South Africa. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 16(2):146-160.         [ Links ]

Munjeri, D 2004. Tangible and intangible heritage: From difference to convergence. Museum International, 56(1-2):12-20.         [ Links ]

Naiker, S 1998. Curriculum change and out-comes based education. University of Natal, Durban.         [ Links ]

Perez, RJ, Lopez, JMC & Listan, MF 2010. Heritage education: Exploring the conceptions of teachers and administrators from the perspective of experimental and social science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26:1319-1331.         [ Links ]

Phillips, R 2006. Historical significance: The forgotten key element? Teaching History, 106:14-19.         [ Links ]

Rogers, R, Malancharuvil-Berkes, E, Mosley, M, Hui, D & Joseph, GOG 2005. Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3):365-416.         [ Links ]

Romanowski, MH 1996. Problems of bias in history textbooks. Social Studies, 60(3):170-173.         [ Links ]

Sarantakos, S 2005. Social Research (Third ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.         [ Links ]

Saunders, C 2007. The transformation of heritage in the new South Africa. In: HE Stolten (Ed.), History making and present day politics: The meaning of collectice memory in South Africa. Stockholm: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 183-195.         [ Links ]

Schoeman, S 2009. The representation of women in a sample of post - 1994 South African school history textbooks South African Journal of Education, 29:541556.         [ Links ]

Sewall, GT 2004. World history textbooks: A review. Paper presented at the American textbook council, New York.         [ Links ]

Stevens, P, Schade, A, Chalk, B, & Slevin, O 1993. Understanding research: A scientific approach for health care professionals. Edinburgh: The Alden Press.         [ Links ]

UNESCO World Heritage Convention 1972. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Paper presented at the Seventheenth General Conference session of the World Heritage Convention, 16 November 1972, Paris.         [ Links ]

van Wijk, L (No date). Developments in heritage education in Europe: EUROCLIO;s enquiries compared. Available at: www.heirnet.org/IJHLTR/journal10/papers/Vanwijk.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2011.         [ Links ]

van Wyk, L & Pillay, V 2010. The elephants that caused all the trouble. Mail & Guardian Online. Available at: www.mg.co.za/./img/revistas/yt/n10/2010-02-18-the-elephants-that-caused-all-the-trouble. Accessed on 10 June 2011.         [ Links ]

Vecco, M 2010. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11:321-324.         [ Links ]

Wakefield, JF 2006. Textbook usage in the United States: The case of U.S history. Paper presented at the International seminar on Textbooks, Santiago, Chile.         [ Links ]